Screener
GMF vs AAXJ
State Street SPDR S&P Emerging Asia Pacific ETF vs iShares MSCI All Country Asia ex Japan ETF
Key differences
- GMF costs 0.23% less per year.
- AAXJ is significantly larger than GMF — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- GMF is classified as alternative, while AAXJ is equity — different risk/return profiles.
- GMF covers emerging markets markets; AAXJ covers asia pacific.
- Over the last 3 years, AAXJ has delivered higher annualized returns.
Side-by-side comparison
| GMF | AAXJ | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.49% | 0.72% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $386M | $3.8B |
| Since | 2007 | 2008 |
| Dividend yield | 1.39% | 1.54% |
| Asset class | alternative | equity |
| Region | emerging markets | asia pacific |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +26.7% | +48.0% |
| CAGR 3Y | +17.9% | +22.3% |
| CAGR 5Y | +5.8% | +6.8% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.84 | 0.97 |
| Volatility 1Y | 16.22% | 19.80% |
| Max drawdown | -40.18% | -44.52% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to GMF and AAXJ
Explore further